You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: Covid 19
buzzsaw wrote:mitchejw wrote:What stance? I've taken no stance except listening to the likes of you two isn't worth my time...or quite frankly anyone's...
Now go post 17 articles that support your point view....see if i give a shit...i'll find 17 that don't support your view...
BTW, if you haven't taken a stance, you've just admitted you're nothing but a troll. Well done!
It woulda been nice to continue to share my trials and tribulations with navigating this as a business owner....the things I've had to endure...The choices I've had to make...
Instead this turned into the same old pissing match. I resent you for always turning this shit into some kinda damn pissing match.
Wouldn't happen if you'd acknowledge facts that destroy the myths you're trying to push as fact. Fortunately as more information comes out it basically forces your silence. You do this to yourself and don't even realize you're doing it.
Re: Covid 19
mitchejw wrote:buzzsaw wrote:BTW, if you haven't taken a stance, you've just admitted you're nothing but a troll. Well done!
It woulda been nice to continue to share my trials and tribulations with navigating this as a business owner....the things I've had to endure...The choices I've had to make...
Instead this turned into the same old pissing match. I resent you for always turning this shit into some kinda damn pissing match.
Wouldn't happen if you'd acknowledge facts that destroy the myths you're trying to push as fact. Fortunately as more information comes out it basically forces your silence. You do this to yourself and don't even realize you're doing it.
Again...i ask you to point to one assertion i made...one theory i purported...about this...
You’re the dickhead who needs to make this about how smart you are...you ain’t nuthin.
Re: Covid 19
mitchejw wrote:We know that's how you do it. Glad you can admit it.
Did you really just "I'm rubber, you're glue" the guy?
Re: Covid 19
TheMole wrote:Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
Average age of a death to COVID in my state is 79. Average life expectancy in the US 78.5. So people dying by me don't have 12 years left. As around 80% of fatalities in the US are occurring in nursing homes, I don't think that metric would apply here, and I'm curious how the Scots came to that conclusion. I know if I was 80, I'd want 12 more years in a nursing home. How much "economic growth" are you willing to sacrifice? 33% unemployment? How many homes need to be lost and life savings drained so your 80 year old grandmother gets 12 more years in a nursing home? I'm curious where your cutoff is?
So what, we should just accept the anecdotal evidence for your state instead of the only actual scientific report on this?
The problem I see with this whole "economic collapse" argument is that no one is able to pinpoint the actual real-world impact of this. So what if the stock market is down? The economy is a societal construct anyway, we as a society have all the tools at hand to mitigate the impact of the lockdown on the economy and most countries seem to be rather successful in doing so. In most Western countries, defaults on morgages are not up significantly, foreclosures are not up significantly, etc... because the gov't is doing their job and addressing these things, temporarily changing the rules of the game. Seems to me the biggest problem for the US economy is the federal government half-assing it, as usual.
As for my cutoff, hard to say. I do know that I'd rather lose my job than lose my grandmother... If this pandemic means I have to get furloughed until this thing blows over, so be it. Banks have been ordered by the government to put mortgage payments on hold anyway. But that's just how things go in a socialist European country, I know things are different stateside.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: Covid 19
Randall Flagg wrote:TheMole wrote:Some interesting data from the University of Glasgow. On average, the number of years lost per corona victim so far is 13 years for men and 11 years for women. Of course, given the speed at which research into corona is being released means that these aren't properly peer reviewed reports, but it is the first time scientific research has been done on this topic.
I, personally, find it ethically defendable to sacrifice a certain bit of economic growth to save the lives of people who on average still have about 12 years to live.
Average age of a death to COVID in my state is 79. Average life expectancy in the US 78.5. So people dying by me don't have 12 years left. As around 80% of fatalities in the US are occurring in nursing homes, I don't think that metric would apply here, and I'm curious how the Scots came to that conclusion. I know if I was 80, I'd want 12 more years in a nursing home. How much "economic growth" are you willing to sacrifice? 33% unemployment? How many homes need to be lost and life savings drained so your 80 year old grandmother gets 12 more years in a nursing home? I'm curious where your cutoff is?
So what, we should just accept the anecdotal evidence for your state instead of the only actual scientific report on this?
The problem I see with this whole "economic collapse" argument is that no one is able to pinpoint the actual real-world impact of this. So what if the stock market is down? The economy is a societal construct anyway, we as a society have all the tools at hand to mitigate the impact of the lockdown on the economy and most countries seem to be rather successful in doing so. In most Western countries, defaults on morgages are not up significantly, foreclosures are not up significantly, etc... because the gov't is doing their job and addressing these things, temporarily changing the rules of the game. Seems to me the biggest problem for the US economy is the federal government half-assing it, as usual.
As for my cutoff, hard to say. I do know that I'd rather lose my job than lose my grandmother... If this pandemic means I have to get furloughed until this thing blows over, so be it. Banks have been ordered by the government to put mortgage payments on hold anyway. But that's just how things go in a socialist European country, I know things are different stateside.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-52214177
Well, I mean my state has more than 2x the amount of people as all of Scotland (you Europhiles keep forgetting how much bigger we yanks are than any of your countries), so if you're going to make a blanket statement about ages, I think the sample should be evaluated. Looking at this BBC article from 5 days ago, 90% of all deaths in Scotland have been over the age of 65 and 75% are over the age of 75. The average life expectancy in Scotland is 79. So my state's numbers and Scotland's are almost identical, but why research any of this before linking an article that supports your fear.
So I have no idea how this study makes the argument people are dying 12 years too early. 40% of all Scots dying from COVID are over 85, and only 9% are under 65 (wow, this number is significantly higher than the US - don't let the others know this piece of information) so it just doesn't add up at all. But feel free to accuse my "anecdotal" evidence of my state which has over 2x the population of Scotland, and ignore Scotland's own numbers which clearly show this study to be wrong on its face. And what do you know, the majority of deaths in Scotland are occurring in "care homes". It's almost as if the virus treats people the same regardless of nationality. You found a headline, didn't bother to fact check a single thing or see if it made sense at all, linked it as an authority, then had the gall to say me linking actual numbers from my states (which is 2x a big as Scotland) is anecdotal. Wooosh (that's the sound of it going over your head)
I get it. People defaulting on loans and losing their homes is all just imaginary. 33% unemployment is just a number. These people don't need income and food to eat.
If you're going to just dismiss anything I say outright, do yourself a favor and make sure your posts at least pass the smell test before embarrassing yourself. You clearly didn't bother to research anything before posting, and have the audacity to call my comments anecdotal when some random, non credited study you link doesn't pass basic math. But keep trying.
I'm still waiting for you to define ethically defensible. But since you don't even know basic information on population and demographics, I doubt you've put aside much time to read moral philosophy. Let me know if you get caught up, it's been 15 years since I graduated with an undergrad in philosophy, but I'm sure I'm up for the challenge.
Re: Covid 19
It's somewhat fascinating that the people that claim to care about people so much aren't worried about people losing their jobs, houses, sanity, businesses, lives (I know you care about the virus deaths, but you don't seem worried about the other deaths including suicide that have happened as a direct result of poor decisions being made), etc. It's like you aren't willing to admit that there are consequences to the decisions that have been made that might hurt more people than actually die from the virus.
It's like the heart only bleeds when it's convenient.
